I was listening to Michael Brown’s radio show from 8/06/09 and at about 17:25 minutes in he makes a comment about the NLT saying:
The New Living, I would not recommend as your primary translation, I would recommend as secondary. In other words read in a more literal translation and then read the New Living, sometimes it brings out the meaning better…
He goes on to say that Don Wilkerson, the founder of Teen Challenge prefers the NLT because he finds that it brings out the meaning the most clearly. Brown then admits that he’s often quoted from the NLT because “it nails the point” but continues saying, “but for careful systematic study you want to use it as a secondary translation.” But if it “nails the point” and communicates the message more clearly than some other so-called literal translations, why not use it as your primary translation? Let’s face the facts, if we’re not reading in the original languages then we’re handicapped as it is. It would seem that the translation that is the clearest in terms of conveying the meaning of the text should be preferred. Why not make the NLT your primary and the more literal translations secondary? Pretty much everyone agrees that we should be using multiple translations anyway, right?
B”H
That is exactly why I use my NLT as my primary.
That’s hilarious. I’m amazed at the things people say about translation sometime.
What radio show is this?
Honestly, I lean heavily toward formal equivalence for my study time; I guess I prefer the grappling. But I have found that translations on the dynamic equivalence end can obscure the point with cultural spin. From my experience, it seems formal equivalence translations do this less often and I’m willing to struggle a bit for the meaning.
George: Me too, although as of late I’ve been reading the TNIV a lot.
Mike: It’s Michael L. Brown’s Line of Fire. He archives all the shows on this blog.
Laura: When I’m studying I use a variety of translations plus the source languages and a bunch of lexical aids since my knowledge of the original languages is dismal. Other than things like weights and measures I don’t see too much cultural influence in the NLT.
Nick, your questions are fair enough.
Yeah, I like what Mike had to say.
I would be using the NLT as my primary text accept that I’m married to certain expressions in the TNIV.
TC: Which expressions?
Well, more mention of the Holy Spirit in Paul in the TNIV and in the NLT. The NLT is weird at 1 Cor. 12:1, “special abilities” and so on.
But I do quote from the NLT quite a lot in my powerpoint presentations.
I think I mentioned this once before, but I had a professor who was on the NLT translation committee. Long before the NLT was out, he spoke of being part of an effort to translate the Bible on (IIRC) a sixth-grade level, and I remember distinctly that he spoke of the purpose of the translation being to provide a Bible for those who were just too (how can I say this nicely?) *readerly challenged* to use *real* translations.
Unfortunately, when the NLT came out, it wasn’t marketed in the way the translation committee thought it was going to be, but rather was marketed to *everyone* as a *bonafide* translation.
As you might guess, I don’t recommend the NLT for anyone, except as a step up from The Message.
Would Erasmus still have prayed for vernacular translations if he knew there would one day be an NLT and The Message?
In defense of Brown, he did do a phd in Near Eastern languages and literature at NYU. He’s very fluent in Hebrew. I’ve seen him both read from the Hebrew on the fly and speak it so he does know a thing or two about the language of the Bible and translation.
I think his point about using a more literal translation for primary study is probably valid if you are looking for less interpretation and modernization (in terms of modern English) from your Bible. But at the same time, because of his expertise in the original language of the Bible, he probably doesn’t remember what it’s like studying the Bible when you don’t have any understanding of the original languages or tools to help you with that. In that situation reading a literal translation doesn’t help you understand the Bible any better it just helps you recognize idioms and areas where the translators may have had to do more interpretation in their translation.
Bryan L
TC: Gotcha.
John: After years of using ‘real’ translations (mainly the KJV and NASB) I can tell you that I much prefer the NLT to either of them. And I’m a decent reader.
Bryan: If memory serves he’s well versed in something like 16 languages. I’ve heard him spot read Greek and Hebrew and I’ve heard him speak modern Israeli Hebrew (which he speaks with native fluency). What baffles me is how he can say that it nails the point or communicates the message very clearly and then still say it should only be secondary. Isn’t that the entire point of a translation?
John: Those so-called “reading levels” are completely meaningless and thus also useless for measuring anything.
Nick,
But why do you prefer the NLT? For its *readability*? If your goal in reading the text is to understand it accurately, then readability is the wrong criterion for choosing a translation. In fact, choosing in favor of readability will almost certainly lead you wrong. (That’s only logical, given when and where the Bible was written!)
Since you’re such a stickler for Trinitarian orhtodoxy, let’s express it in those terms: Would you recommend a treatise on the Trinity that was readable but doctrinally flawed over one that was accurate but took a little more effort to read?
Mike,
I hope you didn’t read something classist into my remarks. If you did, you missed my point, which is simply that translations aimed at less expert readers are necessarily worse.
My reference to reading levels is not meaningless when it comes to the accuracy of a translation. Readability comes at a tremendous cost, and a translation aimed at a lower reading level (like the NLT) necessarily sacrifices a lot.
If our aim is to read scripture and apply it in our lives, then readability seems to be a good thing in my mind. If our intent is to recognize the minute details of form and syntax, then something else may be required. But should we give up the ease of reading the majority because of the corner cases that are more difficult? This is exactly why we use secondary translations, and attempt to learn the original languages.
Accuracy does not seem to be the same thing as clarity to me. Just because it is accurate does not mean a general reader, or even a fairly educated reader, will not make an error in grasping the thrust or nuance. The “accuracy”, and likely dependence on knowledge of form, context, etc., may even mean the likelihood of mistakes in application greater. Especially in newbies who are trying to emulate those out there who seem to have it under control.
It is like chemistry and physics. They give you simplified forms of equations for a reason. Knowing Newtonian dynamics is perfect for everyday use. You don’t need relativity or even quantum physics to build a skyscraper or boil a pot of water. In general, the longer and more difficult equations are just not necessary for day to day calculation. When they are, you pull them out. But no scientist refuses the simple equation on principle – simply because it is not as “accurate”. They work with formulas that they rightly recognize are mere approximations of reality, and thus always subject to being slightly “inaccurate”.
John: I prefer the NLT for its ability to communicate the meaning of the text accurately. I’ve come across bits here and there that I’d quibble with, but nothing that would lead me to believe that the translation team produced an inferior translation or one that contains doctrinal errors (which are generally the result of the reader and not necessarily the text).
George: I think that if our goal is to recognize the minute details of form and syntax then translations will not do. We need to be reading the originals for that. A translation should accurately convey the message of a text in its source language to its target language. Accuracy has (to my mind) little to do with reproducing form and everything to do with reproducing the intent/content of the message.
Maybe he just thinks we should use a wooden, literal translation as a check.
James: Perhaps. To me the comment sounded like he’s saying that one is more accurate and therefore better than the other, which would be fine if he didn’t make the statements about how clear and right on the NLT is in conveying the message.
Nick,
Reconsidering my statement, I think “cultural spin” was probably the wrong term. When it comes to dynamic equivalence translations, two pet peeves are pronoun number (I’ve been know to pull out the KJV or YLT just to check you and thou) and interpretational spin on terms (like the NIV’s rendering of sarx as sin nature).
That said, I use the NLT in my devotional reading (usually for Scripture I’ve already studied), so I do see a use. I’d just rather start with questions raised by the idioms, etc. But then, I’m a theo-geek, so go figure.
John:
You write, My reference to reading levels is not meaningless when it comes to the accuracy of a translation. Readability comes at a tremendous cost, and a translation aimed at a lower reading level (like the NLT) necessarily sacrifices a lot.
Your reference to reading levels is meaningless to the extent that the reading levels themselves are meaningless. They’ve never been a helpful standard for measuring anything.
Laura: What do you mean pronoun number? What exactly bothers you? Are you talking about the use of “singular they”? Or something else?
John: I’d also be interesting in 1) how you definite accuracy and what translation you consider accurate and why.
Laura: I find the pronoun thing more curious than bothersome. I don’t so much mind ‘interpretational spin’ since that’s pretty much what all translation is anyway. I think where the NIV does render ‘sarx’ as ‘sinful nature’ they have a contextual warrant to do so, just as they do when rendering it ‘flesh.’
Mike, I mean the singular “they” for the most part.
Nick, With sarx, I’m a stickler for the meaning of nature–we have a human nature, not a sin nature–so sarx should never be translated “sin nature” in my thinking. And, yes, I realize I’m quite the minority. So it goes.
Just so I don’t seem like an utter literalist whack, I do recommend NLT and other dynamic equivalence translations to new and and like-new believers. For those who’d like to go deeper in study and struggle a bit, I go formal equivalence.
Laura: I see your point. So if they used something more cumbersome like “[human] nature given to sin” or something like that, would you have as much of a problem?
And just so I don’t seem like I’m anti-formal equivalence, I was reared on the KJV and it’s still my all time favorite translation. My problem with the NASB is how it sounds when read aloud, very unnatural in my opinion. I like the ESV well enough and although the NRSV is more in the middle than firmly on one side or the other, I like it as well.
Laura: I agree with you on SARX. The T/NIV’s translation isn’t very helpful on that one.
I would suggest that you give singular they another chance though. Its in the KJV: Deut. 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
And its actually older than he/him/his for a generic: HERE
I primarily use the TNIV and NLT. I also have around a dozen other translations that I consult if I am curious on a rendering. I can’t really imagine only using a single translation. If I had to limit myself to just one, it would probably be the NRSV, simply because it is available in all of the canonical variants.
I have recently been recommending the NLT to our middle school and high school pastors to suggest to our youth. Either that or the TNIV. To be honest though, most of our teenagers have difficultly understanding the TNIV, and the NLT speaks their language. I gave up on the ESV and KJV almost immediately last year, as it was a total waste of time having to translate them on the fly into something they understood.
There are so many translations for so many uses that it is really difficult to limit the options down to a single Bible for someone. If someone was open to buying two Bibles, I would recommend the ESV Study Bible as a secondary resource for study purposes, and a nice edition of the NLTse as a primary and daily reading Bible. The TNIV seems to be the best compromise if a person is only willing to own and read a single copy of the Bible.
Mike,
What do your words “reading levels themselves are meaningless” mean? I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. Surely the notion of a reading level is not meaningless, so I guess you mean something else.
As for more accurate translations: I consider the KJV and the NASB in that category. Why? For one thing, they try to keep words and phrases as close to the order of the original as Englishly possible, which allows for a certain amount of second-guessing the translator even when you don’t have the Greek or Hebrew with you. These newer “dynamic” translations don’t do that. With them, you’re at the mercy of the translator. If he or she misunderstood what a biblical writer was trying to say, you’d have no way of knowing how far the translator has stranded you from the facts of the matter.
John: The idea of reading levels is great. The methods for determining them are inconsistent and unreliable. And if you can’t trust the method, you can’t trust the result – which incidentally, is why I think so-called “literal” translations aren’t very good.
And back to translations themselves: that kind of second-guessing the translator is only possible if you know Greek & Hebrewto begin with. And if you know Greek & Hebrew, then you can already do the same thing with other translations. How can someone who doesn’t know the language do what you’ve just described?
Mike,
I still don’t get it. Regardless of whether one rightly judges a reading level (which would be beside any of my points), you must agree that some translations are “dumbed down” in comparison with others, and that by dint of their dumbing down, they’ve lost something. And whether the NLT accurately hit the sixth-grade reading level is immaterial–the translators had to make unfortunate decisions in *trying* to hit it.
And, yes, one who *doesn’t know* Greek or Hebrew can often second-guess the translators, if the translation is wooden enough. I know because I used to do it often back before I learned Greek and Hebrew. I could never have done it with what passes for a translation today.
Nick,
I translate SARX as flesh. Not sure what I’d do beyond that. I’ve just seen too many people confused, thinking that human nature is inherently sinful (which brings up major issues in the incarnation).
As for translations, here’s the list of the ones I use on a fairly regular basis:
Complete Jewish Bible, Darby’s New Translation, English Standard Version (primary group study bible), Holman Christian Standard Bible, King James Version, The Message (eek!), New American Standard Bible (decidedly secondary, due to clunky reading), New International Version (despite sarx :-), New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, and Young’s Literal Translation.
‘Tis a bit of variety if I do say so myself :-)
Mike,
Honestly, the singular THEY is partly cultural: just can’t get past it (maybe a generational thing).
Laura: Yeah, I can see that.
John:
You write, “you must agree that some translations are “dumbed down” in comparison with others, and that by dint of their dumbing down, they’ve lost something.”
Could you give an example? Preferably couple?
I am with Nate – I typically go NRSV, TNIV, NLT and so on. I preach/teach from the TNIV but prefer the NRSV for my “literal” text. I try as much as I can to prepare straight from the biblical languages.
Dumbed down versions of the Bible:
the NLT
The Message
I don’t dispute that bonafide and gifted scholars are behind the NLT. It’s not *their* fault that it is what it is. They did what they were told to do. The fault lies with the publisher, who told the translators that it would be aimed at one group when in fact they marketed it to everyone.
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. Western culture in general has been dumbing down everything for several decades now, and American Christian culture has been leading the way. (Just go to the Christian bookstore in the nearest mall and look at the apologetics section!)
John: Examples of texts – paragraphs.
Are you an English teacher?
I don’t own a copy of the NLT or The Message, but I have heard them quoted in church and in Sunday School, and I’ve always been saddened by what I’ve heard. They sound like Bibles aimed at Paris Hilton’s level of understanding.
No, I’m not an English teacher.
If I come across any specific examples, I’ll post them.
Let me just say–so you can better understand we’re I’m coming from–that I’ve never cared for the Nida school of thought on translation. I recently read J. P. Louw’s *The Semantics of New Testament Greek*, which was terrific with respect to showing how texts convey meaning, but which gave terrible examples of how the biblical text should be translated. The supposed translations weren’t translations at all, but rather loose paraphrases of a hidden translation.
John: Well, I’m not sure if either of us will be able to understand each other.
I don’t dispute that bonafide and gifted scholars are behind the NLT. It’s not *their* fault that it is what it is. They did what they were told to do. The fault lies with the publisher, who told the translators that it would be aimed at one group when in fact they marketed it to everyone.
Mr. Poirier,
Those statements are not correct. Bible publishers don’t tell translators what to do. It sounds like you’ve read a lot of propaganda.
What makes you say that “Bible publishers don’t tell translators what to do”?
I’m going by the personal testimony of someone who was on the translating committee of the NLT. According to him, they were “told what to do” insofar as they were told that their translation should target those who were at about a sixth-grade reading skills. I doubt this could be “propaganda”, because when this professor told me about this, the NLT was still years from being published, and he (and I) had every reason to believe that it would be marketed in accordance with how its reading level was set.
This is not the first time that a Bible publisher has misled a team of translators. When the translators of the NIV completed their work, it was handed over to a team of English professors to turn it into good, flowing English. In other words, the final wording of the NIV was determined by a group of people who could not read the original languages!
The NLT looses many big theological words in favor of a lower reader comprehension. This is because many in North America don’t comprehend at the high school level. This might not have been intended but it’s also proved to be an excellent translation for ESL (English as a Second Language) people.
Now for the NIV, of which you just entered very foolish teritory. Nothing you stated about the NIV is true either. If you really want to learn something, read the book by NIV translator Kenneth L. Barker, The NIV The Making of a Contemporary Translation.
What I said about the NIV also came from the personal testimony of one who was on the committee. Although he was one of the translators, he refused to use the NIV in class, for the reason I stated: the finished product was *not* what the committee turned in.
If nothing of that is true, then my former professor was lying. I seriously doubt he could be lying, however, since one of his colleagues (in the same department) was also on the NIV translation committee, and he (the former) could not have gotten away with telling that story if it were untrue.
I’ve seen Barker’s book–he’s basically an apologist for the NIV. What makes you think he would include that embarrassing detail?
I’ve seen Barker’s book–he’s basically an apologist for the NIV. What makes you think he would include that embarrassing detail?
Oh no reason at all. He was only a senior translator and Executive Director, the big boss ya know…
Pingback: Ecclesiology Wrap August 8 - August 13 - Who in the World Are We?
John: Read Gutt.
Nick,
I read the TNIV, and my secondary bible is the NLT. Although I really love the NLT bible and really enjoy reading it. Other translations I consult are the HCSB & ESV.
Robert I’ve not been able to get into the HCSB. It probably has to do with the fact that the only hard copy I own if the Apologetics Study Bible and it’s too big to carry around and read comfortably.
Nick, the HCSB is closer to the NIV, but right now I do prefer the TNIV as a great primary general purpose bible (reading, study, teaching, etc).
Robert: It’s definitely growing on me. It’s kind of like going back in time since when I was first saved I started reading the NIV before moving to the KJV. The TNIV brings back some good memories.